Chicagoisms — Restoring Chicago’s Architecture Growth Story
This open research note was originally published in April 2014 on Storify, a defunct blogging platform for journalistic story creation using social media — often live posts from face-to-face events. It is the third in a series of stories deemed worth saving in The Social Spring project — this one for reporting on the launch event of a Chicago architecture growth story revival call to action that is arguably gaining some momentum today.
The Chicagoisms: The City as Catalyst for Architectural Speculation book launch at the Graham Foundation marked the opening of the Chicagoisms show at the Art Institute of Chicago — and a call to action to restore Chicago’s architecture growth story.
Chicagoisms is about Chicago’s architecture growth story — its most productive episodes to date and how the city functioned so well as a “mediator of ideas and an instigator of speculation.” Editors and contributors to the Graham-funded book Chicagoisms: The City as Catalyst for Architectural Speculation, confronted Chicago’s history of radical architecture and urban visions — and the general lack thereof since the 1970s. Editor Alexander Eisenschmidt introduced Chicagoisms and short presentations by Penelope Dean, Ellen Grimes, Sam Jacob and Mark Linder. A fairly lively discussion moderated by editor Jonathan Mekinda followed. But if this Chicagoisms idea is to spread wide enough to bring about real change, more passionate debate will clearly be needed.
The turnout bodes well for the Chicagoisms call to action. Graham Foundation social media posts noted the time as “tonight” when it actually started at 2pm. As it was, the event was sitting and standing room only. The key to the success of the Chicagoisms big idea will be spreading it to the mainstream. Hopefully the Art Institute show will get some good press and word of mouth beyond the architecture crowd.
The significance of Chicagoisms — of maybe even #Chitecture, to use a trending hashtag that speaks to the same municipal brand identity — is in its ability to travel globally. How do we restore this global relevance of Chicago architecture?
Chicago architecture — and the soul of Chicago — is in trouble, or so the argument went. Daniel Burnham’s “make no little plans” imperative has been inverted. We have a Chicago of too many little plans, with less and less magic to stir men’s blood.
Indeed, while there are exceptions, this is tough to argue with in general. On a private architecture boat tour a few years ago, our outspoken tour guide Helmut Jahn launched profanities at most of the buildings as we motored down the Chicago River. Everything he said was painfully true . Design mediocrity puts Chicago’s global reputation at risk. May the city of broad shoulders make bigger plans — aiming higher “in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will not die, but long after we are gone be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistence.” Or the inverse, alas.
Methinketh it odd that amidst a full house of hip Chicago architects, I was the only one who seemed to be live tweeting. Those who took notes did so on paper. This seems to be a bad indicator for Chicago innovation. Hopefully the #Chicagoisms hashtag sees more action across social networks now that the show has opened.
A good question that I hope Chicagoisms the book and Art Institute show answer to some degree. I’d be curious to know Mayor Emanuel’s answer and position on Chicago architecture. How does this architectural innovation fit the broader Chicago growth story?
Nice to see Studio Gang get their props here. I think most of us can agree they are a good example of what’s going right with Chicago architecture. May they help lead us to a bigger Chicago growth story.
Let the debate begin.
The Art Institute show dives deeper into Chicago’s architectural history to “define principles of architectural action and urban engagement to which architecture practices were invited to respond via speculative proposals for the contemporary city.”
The show expands on the idea of what the book set out to do about Chicago architecture and its future:
Throughout its history the city of Chicago has inspired myriad urban and architectural innovations, many of which have had far-reaching influence. Indeed, urbanists and architects today still look to many of these historical moments in Chicago as exemplary instances of progression and development. The collection of the Art Institute’s Department of Architecture has extensive holdings on work within the region of Chicago, representing the important innovations, theoretical approaches, and architectural movements spurred by the city’s development. This exhibition surveys Chicago’s rich urban history and explores contemporary approaches to five Chicagoisms — key historical principles that have powered the city’s distinctive evolution.
“Aspiring architecture critic” Justin Manley continued the conversation on Twitter by drawing a parallel to Blair Kamin’s Chicago Tribune series on Chicago architecture in China. Chicagoisms aims to restore the Chicago architecture growth story — whilst China and the broader global urbanization trend in general need Chicago architecture ideas. Perhaps the longevity of the Chicagoisms call to action will rest squarely on the shoulders of China and other emerging markets? At least to some degree? Will be a fascinating narrative to monitor regardless.
Architect Andrew Moddrell, who is part of the Chicagoisms show and a winner of the 2014 Emerging Visions Competition, jumped in to the conversation with a “10 year gap” point — that despite Blair Kamin’s China-Chicago narrative, there’s been a 10-year gap between important Chicago architecture projects. Which Kamin attributed to the Great Recession. Which makes sense. Just ask anyone involved with the Spire. There was a will, but the way dried up. The 10-year gap story probably isn’t much more complicated than that.
Bottom line, Moddrell was just “advocating more competition + experimentation” to grow the architecture audience going forward. A noble goal. The question may now be — will the Chicago architecture growth story be driven by work in Chicago? Or emerging markets such as China and Dubai? Are big Chicago projects like the Spire really making a comeback as the US economy recovers? Or are big Chicago ideas destined to happen more abroad?
The world’s smartest economists probably could not answer these questions with any degree of certainty. China real estate may very well implode. Or not. Chicago’s economy has its own well publicized risks in the decade ahead. Such global, increasingly interconnected drama promises an engaging Chicago architecture growth story for the foreseeable future.
Originally published at storify.com.
